Karnataka Court November 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
P.P. Muthanna S/O Poovaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. The order vides Annexure-'G' dated 28.1.2009 is called in question in this writ petition. By the said order, the prayer of the petitioner to cut the trees grown on Survey No.227/lB, situated at Badragola village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District, is refused.2. The impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioner. Moreover, the 2nd respondent who passed the order has relied upon the information of the Deputy Commissioner, Coors, to the effect that the petitioner does not own the trees, but is the owner of the lands. The said report also was not served on the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed.3. Though the document at Annexure-'E' dated 30.4.2004 is a communication between the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Conservator of Forests, the same takes away the rights, if any, of the petitioner. In view of the same, the said order also needs to be treated as an order passed...
S C Ramesh S/O Late Chan Nabasappa Vs. Ag Annaraj S/O Late a Gopal Nai ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. In pursuance to the order dated 10-11-2010 this petition is listed for admission. By that order both parties were directed to file statement showing portion in the occupation of the petitioner.2. The learned counsel for both sides is present.3. Petitioner's counsel files a memo to the following effect:MEMO WITHDRAWING REVISION The petitioner withdraws the petition with a liberty to establish his right by identifying the portion in his possession by a separate suit by continuing in the in the present portion on mezzanine as ordered by the executing court in Ex 233/91 dated 24-04-2010 with these observation the above petition be disposed of in the interest of Justice.4. The request in the memo so far as it relates to reserving of right of the petitioner to seek protection of his occupation is opposed.5. Heard.6. The contentions in the memo extracted above would show that petitioner intends to withdraw revision petition in the first instance and seeks leave to pursue action in sep...
Sri Subramani. and Sri Sathish and ors Vs. M/S. the National Insurance ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
:1. Though this matter is posted today in Orders list, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.2. This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 04/01/2007 passed in MVC No. 6932/2005 by the X Additional Judge and Member. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-16), (hereinafter referred to as ' Tribunal' for short).3. The Tribunal by its judgment and award has awarded a sum of 8,20,000/- under different heads with interest at 6% per annum from the daie of petition till payment, as against the claim of the claimants for a sum of 50,00,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased Smt. Radha, in the road traffic accident.4. The occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of the Deceased Smt. Radha are not in dispute. The claimants who are the husband, children and mother-in-law of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under section 166 of M.V. Act, ...
Sri C.Chikkanarayanaswamy Vs. Smt. Honnuramma
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Respondent has filed O.S.86/96 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chickaballapur, against the petitioner' seeking relief of declaration and injunction. The defendant filed written statement on 15.3.97 and opposed the claim of the plaintiff. I.A.9 was filed by the petitioner on 31.10.09 for appointment of a Commissioner to conduct local inspection and to submit the report. Though plaintiff objected the appointment of a Court Commissioner, the "trail Court, by its order dated 2.12.09, allowed the said application in part. The Commissioner has conducted the local inspection and has submitted the report, to which the plaintiff has filed the statement of objections. The petitioner did not file any objections to the report of the Commissioner, instead, he filed I.A.10 to direct the Commissioner to demarcate the boundaries of the suit schedule properties in terms of the order dated 2.12.09. The said application has been dismissed by the Trial Court with a finding to the following ...
Smt.Hiriyamrna and Smt.Lalithainma Vs. Rangappa, S/O Late Rudrappa and ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession in respect of half share in the suit schedule properties.2. The case made out by the plaintiffs is as follows:One Patel Shivalingappa was the porosities. He had three sons namely Patel Rudrappa, Thimmappa and Ramappa and two daughters namely Smt.Basamma and Smt.Gowramma. Thimmappa, the second son is the husband of plaintiff No. 1 and the defendants are the legal heirs of late Patel Rudrappa. The sons of the late porosities constituted a Hindu Undivided Family and it continued during the lifetime of late Thimmappa and Rudrappa. Since Rudrappa was the eldest son, he was managing the affairs of the family. 'A' schedule suit properties arc Patelki lands. After coming into force of the Village Officers' Abolition Act, the suit lands vested with the Government. An application is filed by the husband of the la' defendant to re-grant A' schedule properties. The schedule \A' lands were shown to be in hi...
Smt.B.Radha W/O V.Yenkatareddy Vs. the Child Development Planning Offi ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Heard the petitioner's Counsel.2. Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3. In view of the nature of the order that is called in question, notice to respondent No.4 is not necessary.3. The petitioner's grievance is that the petitioner was issued with resident certificate as she belonged to Dhanarnittenahalh grama, BashettihalH hobli, Sidlaghatta taluk and accordingly, she was issued with the said certificate by the 2rd respondent. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent who was also one of the aspirants for the post of Anganwadi worker also sought similar certificate issued in her favour and following the petitioner's being selected for the post of Anganwadi worker on the order of the 3rd respondent dated 15.02.10, the 1* respondent questioned the said order by contending that the petitioner herein was issued with a duplicate certificate and therefore, selection of the petitioner be stayed. The 2nd respondent denied the said allegation by conte...
The Davangere Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Kurnari Pamya D/O. Late ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner herein is impugning trie order passed in LA. 1153/2008 in IR No.457/2007 dated 15.12.2008.2. The brief facts leading to this Writ Petition are as under:The petitioner herein had lent a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/-to one H.B. Channabasappa under the security of residential house belonging to turn situated at Oavtnegere as security for repayment of the said loan. Due to non-payment of the loan, the property secured was sought to be auctioned for sale by invoking the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act' for short) by the petitioner herein.3. In the meanwhile, the original borrower H.B.Channabaoappa died. Therefore, the notice issued under SARFAESI Act was impugned by the legal heirs of late H.B. Channabasappa in ASA. 120/2007 before DRT. In me said proceedings an application was filed in AR No 514/2005 seeking coadunation of delay.4. ...
Sri. G.U. Ajay Aiyappa S/O. G.S. Uttappa Vs. the Government of Karnata ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner had joined the 3rd respondent-College for the study of 5 year LL.B. course for the academic year 2009-2010. He had completed the 1st and 2"d semester examination of the 1st year LL.B. course in the said college. It is contended that he wants to go back to his native place of Kodagu District and continue his studies at Kodagu. Therefore, he has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to return the transfer certificate, marks card of the 2nd PUC and marks card of the Is' and semester examination of Is' year LL.B. course.2. Sri. A. Madhusudana Rao. Learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent-College submits that the College will return the aforesaid documents to the petitioner forthwith.3. In view of the stand taken by the 3rd respondent-College, no further order needs to be passed in this writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs....
K.S. Chandrashekar Vs. A.S. Kariappa, S/O Subbappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Revision petitioner And council are present.2. Learned counsel for the respondent files a memo dated 18.11.2010. The memo reads as under:"The respondent/complainant who is suffering from ailments is unable to attend the Court today. He has written a letter to the counsel expressing that the matter may* be disposed as the same is settled outside the Court. The letter is annexed hereto. The same may be taken on record in the interest of justice."3. An application under section-147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section-257 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed. The application reads as under:"It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent have compromised this case out of Court at the conciliation of their friends and well wishers. Accordingly, the respondent herein (complainant in C.C. No.2102/1998), has received Rs.55,000/- in cash from the petitioner herein (Accused in C.C. No.2102/1998). The further amount of Rs.25,000/- is paid by the accused to the com...
Smt. Ajayamari Vs. Paparaju
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-11-2010
ORDER1. Petitioner has filed O.S.No.683/2009 in the Court or Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.,), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, against the respondent for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of property described in the plaint schedule. By filing written statement to the suit, the respondent has denied the claim of the petitioner to the suit property. I.A No 1 was held by the petitioner seeking an order of temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff. The respondent has filed statement of objections to I.A.No.l on 22.07.2009. The trial court upon consideration of the submission made on behalf of the respective parties by their learned advocates and upon consideration of the record of the suit, has held that, the petitioner has not made out a prima facie case for grant of order of temporary injunction and as a result, I.A No.l having found to be devoid of merit, was rejected by an order dated 31...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »